Selina Lum<\/strong> After breaking up with his girlfriend of more than a year, the chief executive of a listed company sued<\/a> her to recover $468,090 that he had spent on her during their relationship.<\/p>\n On Sept 9, the High Court dismissed Chander Agarwal\u2019s claim that the various sums of money he had spent on his ex-girlfriend, Felicia Lee, were loans that had to be repaid.<\/p>\n In a written judgment, Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin ruled that most of the sums were gifts that the man had willingly given to the woman.<\/p>\n These include $206,000 in credit card charges, $129,000 spent for overseas trips, $17,000 to engage a feng shui master for her flat, and $30,000 in fees for a Stanford-NUS executive programme.<\/p>\n Agarwal failed to prove he had given two other sums to her, including $50,000 he claimed he had lent her to clear a debt to her former employer, said the judge.<\/p>\n The judge said Agarwal could not point to any evidence to show that the woman had requested the disputed sums as loans or that she agreed to repay him.<\/p>\n \u201cThe evidence before me clearly show that the claimant, smitten by the defendant, had showered her with expensive gifts during their relationship,\u201d said the judge.<\/p>\n \u201cUnfortunately, when their relationship ended on a sour note, the claimant became embittered and was determined to extract a price from her.\u201d<\/p>\n The judge quoted the original lines from the 1697 play The Mourning Bride: \u201cHeav\u2019n has no rage, like love to hatred turn\u2019d, Nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorn\u2019d.\u201d<\/p>\n He said: \u201cThis case shows that such emotion is not the sole province of one gender.\u201d<\/p>\n Agarwal is the CEO and managing director of TCI Express, an Indian company listed on both the National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange.<\/p>\n The defendant is a former flight attendant, who later worked as an insurance agent and medical sales officer.<\/p>\n They met on a flight in 2019. Agarwal later approached Lee on Facebook, and they started meeting up.<\/p>\n In September 2022, they began a romantic relationship<\/a>, which ended in December 2023 after he suspected her of infidelity.<\/p>\n He filed the lawsuit filed in March 2024.<\/p>\n Even before the relationship started, he gave her numerous lavish gifts without expecting repayment.<\/p>\n He once booked a limousine to send her home after dinner, bought her luxury items from brands such as Hermes, Louis Vuitton, and Prada, and paid almost all her expenses for a Europe tour that they took together.<\/p>\n In May 2021, when she said on WhatsApp that it had been years since she last took a plane, Agarwal replied: \u201cSoon soon can fly. I have a first class\/suite ticket booked for you already wherever you want to go when it opens. If not take the private jet then\u201d.<\/p>\n When she messaged him in August 2022 to ask how she could repay him, he replied: \u201cNo need. I am not a money lender\u201d.<\/p>\n In September 2022, he told her she should not be shy about using his money if they were \u201ctogether\u201d and offered her a budget of $1,500 per month for her taxi, dining and beauty expenses.<\/p>\n In December 2022, he offered her the use of his Amex Centurion credit card, telling her in a text message: \u201cYou don\u2019t have a budget now. Anything you want.\u201d<\/p>\n Another message said: \u201cAnd spoil yourself too please.\u201d<\/p>\n The judge said: \u201cWhile it is not uncommon for exchanges between romantic partners to be informal, it is telling that the claimant could not point to, for example, any WhatsApp message where the defendant acknowledged receipt of the loans that she had allegedly requested.\u201d<\/p>\n Agarwal, who was represented by Mohamed Baiross, had presented to the court a handwritten agreement purportedly signed by the woman.<\/p>\n In the document, the woman purportedly stated that the monthly \u201cdeposit\u201d of $10,000 to $25,000 she took from Agarwal belonged to him.<\/p>\n The woman, who was represented by Sunil Singh Panoo, denied having signed or even seen the document before the court proceedings.<\/p>\n The judge said the circumstances in which the agreement was presented were suspect, and gave limited weight to the opinion of a handwriting expert that the signature was genuine.<\/p>\n Although Agarwal had based his claims purely on the agreement, he made no reference to it in his original statement of claim, which instead stated that he \u201cnever insisted that the parties entered into a formal written agreement\u201d.<\/p>\n He referred to the agreement only seven months later, when he filed an amended statement of claim.<\/p>\n The judge also pointed out that the statements in the document were contradicted by the facts.<\/p>\n For instance, the woman did not take $10,000 to $25,000 a month, but instead received various sums for different purposes from time to time.<\/p>\n In any event, a subsequent note signed by Agarwal in May 2023, in which he promised that he will never ask for the return of items given to her out of goodwill, superseded any prior agreement, said the judge.<\/p>\n Cross-examined during the trial, Agarwal said that when they started dating \u201ceverything became a loan, everything was transactional\u201d but \u201cbefore that, it wasn\u2019t\u201d.<\/p>\n He also said that once she accepted his offers to spend his money, the expenses would automatically become loans.<\/p>\n The judge said the stance taken by Agarwal was contrary to common sense and unsustainable.<\/p>\n He added that Agarwal was likely being evasive when confronted in court with unfavourable evidence such as his repeated offers to the defendant to spend for her benefit, and assurances that she did not need to repay him.<\/p>\n The judge also rejected Agarwal\u2019s argument that the woman had induced him into giving her the disputed sums by making false representations that they were in a genuine and exclusive relationship and that she would repay him.<\/p>\n The judge said Agarwal\u2019s conduct during the relationship appeared to be a continuation of his relationship style before the couple started dating.<\/p>\n This conclusion was fortified by evidence showing that Agarwal had sexual relations with other women while the couple were in a relationship, casting doubt on whether he himself considered their relationship to be genuine and exclusive, the judge added.<\/p>\n Have something to say? Join in!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Explore more on these topics<\/p>\n<\/div>\n See something interesting? Contribute<\/a> your story to us.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
The Straits Times<\/strong>
Sep 10, 2026<\/strong><\/p>\n
Scroll to continue reading<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\nSuspicious circumstances<\/h2>\n
\n![\"Stomp](\"https:\/\/www.stomp.sg\/assets\/stomp-comment-COLiWNMD.png\")
<\/p>\n